Jusitifcation is obviously a fundamental principle of radiological
protection. Because of the major differences and importance given to the
benefits and the costs between different countries it is up to individual
countries to decide how they want to deal with different uses of radiation.
The use of back scatter security devices will have a different importance to
the US, UK and La Palma and Nigeria. This therefore requires each country
to do its own justifcation exercise and decide how import airline security
is compared to the harm from the estimated doses. In the case of security
x-rays I believe the end result of the justification will be the same in
different countries in that their use is justified. For other radiation
practices the outcomes are not so clear cut. In the UK the use of Am-241 in
radioactive fire alarm detectors is considered justifed and with minor
limitations can be bought at hardware stores. However our French colleagues
do not believe they are justifed and the use of Am 241 is not allowed.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheng Kit-man" <rhu_ic at dh.gov.hk>
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'"
<radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>> Dear Group,
>> The concern is that it is introduction of a planned exposure situation
> that
> may involve repetitive exposure to a large number of people, especially
> the
> group of frequent fliers and air crews. The effective dose, although
> likely
> to be de minimis to the exposed individual on every instant of exposure,
> will amount to a large cumulative population exposure over time.
>> Consideration should be given to the principle of justification for
> applying
> it on particular individuals, say based on reasonable suspicion of threat,
> and the free choice of alternative options, say by pad-down.
>> Clement Cheng
> Radiation Health Unit, Hong Kong
>> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of George Sallit
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2010 4:22 AM
> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>>> John,
>> I am not sure I agree here. ALARA is a process that is used between
> radiation doses that are so small it is not considered worth expending
> significant resources on them (de minimis levels) and dose constraints and
> limits. There have been many proposals for a de minimis dose and in the
> UK,
> for members of the public, a value of 10uSv has been used. Clearly a value
> of 0.06 microsSv is well below this value and is well below any other
> value
> of de minimis that I have seen proposed. In other words this dose is so
> low
> that they should not be given serious consideration in decisions about the
> introduction or use of security screening.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John R Johnson" <idias at interchange.ubc.ca>
> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List"
> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2010 5:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>>>>>> George et al
>>>> The question we professional RP specialists need to ask is "is 0.06
>> microSv ALARA?"
>>>> John
>> ***************
>> John R Johnson, PhD
>> CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
>> 4535 West 9th Ave
>> Vancouver, B. C.
>> V6R 2E2, Canada
>>idias at interchange.ubc.ca>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "George Sallit" <georgesallit325 at btinternet.com>
>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList"
>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2010 3:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>>>>>>> Mark,
>>>>>> It is precisely the numbers that we as professional RP specialists
>>> should be talking about. 0.06 microSv is an incredibly small dose and
>>> certainly should
>>> not be a determining factor in whether these scanners should be used. If
>>> pilots do not want to be security screened then let's hear the reasons
>>> why
>>> and we should challenge the health and safety arguments when they are
>>> wrong.
>>>>>> I had also hoped that the gross misue of collective dose was no
>>> longer being done/encouraged. To talk about real cancer deaths from
>>> summing minute doses
>>> is a misuse of the whole concept. Common but still a misuse.
>>>>>> I agree with you about air crew knowledge of doses and whilst some
>>> air crew know the scanners use X-rays they are less aware that they
>>> get radiation doses from flights and the fact the flight doses are
>>> 100s of times larger than the scanner doses.
>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Mark Ramsay" <mark.ramsay at ionactive.co.uk>
>>> To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>> List"
>>> <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 5:15 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree...
>>>>>>>> Without getting too hung up about exact figures.
>>>>>>>> Typical back scatter scan - 0.06 micro Sv (effective dose)
>>>>>>>> Typical dose rate at 37,000 above the UK - 5 micro Sv/h (high energy
>>>> radiation / neutrons etc etc).
>>>>>>>> (We could have a separate debate about low energy x-rays delivered
>>>> at very high dose rate to the skin vs. High energy penetrating
>>>> radiation - another day!).
>>>>>>>> I think the health issue is a red herring, but might be used to
>>>> enhance their cause (i.e. do not want to be scanned).
>>>>>>>> That said, I have questioned various cabin crew / pilots when flying
>>>> for work and in most cases they appear to pretty much unaware of the
>>>> magnitude of the radiation dose received during their work. If this
>>>> is so then it might well be that they are worried about the back
>>>> scatter systems - in which case some education is needed at flying
>>>> school!
>>>>>>>> Rgs
>>>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>>> www.ionactive.co.uk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu>>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Brennan,
>>>> Mike
>>>> (DOH)
>>>> Sent: 12 November 2010 17:07
>>>> To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
>>>> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>>>>>>>> If the unions were really interested in reducing the radiation dose
>>>> to their members, they would push for some type of optimizing
>>>> program that had pilots (and other crew) flying routes closer to
>>>> home, and decreasing the amount of "deadhead" flying they do, just
>>>> to get to where are they are working. Exposure is the same if you
>>>> are in the cockpit or in the main cabin, and both are vastly higher
>>>> than from the scanner.
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, I agree with the USAPA spokesman about how silly
>>>> it is to apply the same security criteria to pilots as to
>>>> passengers.
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu>>>> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Perle,
>>>> Sandy
>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:29 AM
>>>> To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
>>>> List'
>>>> Subject: [ RadSafe ] Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>>>>>>>> Pilots urged to avoid body scanning
>>>> By Marnie Hunter, CNN
>>>> November 11, 2010 11:17 a.m. EST
>>>>>>>> Pilots unions are concerned about radiation emitted by backscatter
>>>> scanning machines to create full-body images.
>>>>>>>> STORY HIGHLIGHTS
>>>>>>>> * Pilots urged to avoid body scans, opt for pat-downs when
>>>> unavoidable
>>>> * Union president calls pat-downs "a demeaning experience"
>>>> * Unions support security checks for pilots that would allow them to
>>>> bypass standard screening
>>>>>>>> Pilots' unions for US Airways and American Airlines are urging their
>>>> members to avoid full-body scanning at airport security checkpoints,
>>>> citing health risks and concerns about intrusiveness and security
>>>> officer behavior. "Pilots should NOT submit to AIT (Advanced Imaging
>>>> Technology) screening," wrote Capt. Mike Cleary, president of the
>>>> U.S. Airline Pilots Association, in a letter to members this week.
>>>> USAPA represents more than 5,000 US Airways pilots.
>>>>>>>> "Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has
>>>> determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices
>>>> may subject pilots to significant health risks," Cleary wrote.
>>>> American Airlines pilots have also received guidance from their
>>>> union, the Allied Pilots Association, to decline full-body scanning.
>>>> APA represents 11,000 pilots. "It's safe to say that most of the APA
>>>> leadership shares my view that no pilot at American Airlines should
>>>> subject themselves to the needless privacy invasion and potential
>>>> health risks caused by the AIT body scanners," APA president David
>>>> Bates said in a letter to members.
>>>>>>>> Both unions are concerned about the effects of repeated exposure to
>>>> small doses of radiation emitted by the backscatter technology used
>>>> in some of the Transportation Security Administration's full-body
>>>> scanners. In the course of their daily duties, pilots are routinely
>>>> exposed to elevated levels of naturally occurring atmospheric
>>>> radiation, which increases at higher altitudes. The unions urge
>>>> members to choose security lines that use standard metal detectors
>>>> whenever possible. When faced with AIT screening, pilots should opt
>>>> for enhanced pat-downs, although this security procedure also
>>>> concerns the unions. Unions are encouraging pilots to request
>>>> private pat-downs. USAPA urges members to make sure a witness is
>>>> present during the procedure.
>>>>>>>> USAPA refers to incidents where Transportation Security
>>>> Administration officers may have implemented the screening technique
>>>> inappropriately. One pilot described his experience as "sexual
>>>> molestation," according to Cleary's letter. Bates wrote, "There is
>>>> absolutely no denying that the enhanced pat-down is a demeaning
>>>> experience." Both unions are looking for long-term solutions to
>>>> airline crew screening.
>>>>>>>> "Pilots really should never have been subjected to this type of
>>>> screening, ever. Because when we walk through these machines, within
>>>> a few hundred yards we get into what potentially could be the
>>>> biggest weapon on the airport, and that's the airplane," said James
>>>> Ray, a USAirways captain and spokesman for USAPA.
>>>>>>>> Pilots are well screened with security background checks and regular
>>>> medical and mental health checks, he said. The union suggests
>>>> implementing alternate identity verification technology that would
>>>> allow pilots to bypass regular passenger screening.
>>>>>>>> The TSA said it welcomes further discussion with pilots and
>>>> emphasized the agency's role in addressing security threats. "We are
>>>> frequently reminded that our enemy is creative and willing to go to
>>>> great lengths to evade detection. TSA utilizes the latest
>>>> intelligence to inform the deployment of new technology and
>>>> procedures in order to stay ahead of evolving threats," the TSA said
>>>> in a statement.
>>>>>>>> -----------------------------------
>>>> Sander C. Perle
>>>> President
>>>> Mirion Technologies
>>>> Dosimetry Services Division
>>>> 2652 McGaw Avenue
>>>> Irvine, CA 92614
>>>>>>>> +1 (949) 296-2306 (Office)
>>>> +1 (949) 296-1130 (Fax)
>>>>>>>> Mirion Technologies: http://www.mirion.com/>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PROPRIETARY INFORMATION NOTICE: This e-mail message and all
>>>> attachments transmitted with it are intended solely for use by the
>>>> addressee and may contain proprietary information of Mirion
>>>> Technologies and/or its affiliates. If the reader of this message
>>>> is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
>>>> review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this
>>>> message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message
>>>> in error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the
>>>> message, delete the original message and all attachments from your
>>>> computer, and destroy any copies you may have made. Thank you.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>>>>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>>>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>>>>>>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>>>> settings
>>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>>>>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>>>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>>>>>>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>>>> settings
>>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>>>>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>>>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>>>>>>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other
>>>> settings
>>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>>>>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu>> _______________________________________________
>> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>>>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and
>> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>>>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
>> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu>>>> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit:
>http://health.phys.iit.edu>> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
>http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html>> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu>